Opinion Held That Postjudgment Enforcement Statute Trumped CCP § 998 With Respect To Fee Entitlement. On January 10, 2025, we posted on Elmi v. Related Management Company, L.P., Case No. G062788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2025), when it was unpublished. We can now update everyone by indicating that it was certified for […]
Acceptance Line With Request For Dismissal Was No Defect, With The Offer Made In Good Faith Based On Informative Litigation Activities. In Standage v. Bruno, Case No. A165207 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 29, 2025) (unpublished), med mal plaintiff lost a case after the jury returned a defense verdict after less than two hours
Section 998 Governed Prejudgment Issues, But 998 Offer Costs And Fees Enforcement Activities Were Governed By Post-judgment Enforcement Statutes. In Elmi v. Related Management Co., L.P., Case No. G062788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff rejected a defense CCP § 998 offer, with the case resolved for less than the amount
Policy of Encouraging Settlements Cemented This Conclusion. In an interesting unpublished opinion, Calleja v. Udewitz, Case No. B319906 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 30, 2024) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA decided that CCP § 998’s cost-shifting penalties applied to a subsequent personal representative of a deceased defendant not accepting a 998 offer before his death
Plaintiffs Obtained Zero Damages, So $14,242.56 Offers To Each Unsuccessful Plaintiff Allowed For 998 Costs Shifting. In Chang v. Fire Ins. Exchange, Case No. B334217 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 19, 2024) (unpublished), two plaintiffs lost insurance and related tort claims against insurance carrier, after the plaintiffs rebuffed separate $14,242.56 offers under CCP §
This Likely Is A Split In Intermediate Appellate Reasoning, Especially From Reasoning in the Second District’s Gorobets Recent Opinion—But Maybe Not On The End Result When Evaluating Alternative Offer Scenarios. Well, we have a split in intermediate appellate thinking on how simultaneous, alternative CCP § 998 offers should be treated under California law. On
Defense Offer Of $100,000, Rather Than $10,000, Was A Typographical Mistake Worthy Of Correction Where Defense Counsel Notified Plaintiff Of Error Within Three Minutes. For litigators, we all know we are not perfect, with mistakes being made based on the volume of cases we process. The next case, Avila v. John N. Kitta and
However, In Unpublished Part Of Decision, Appellate Court Affirmed A Small Fee Award Where Counsel Failed To Follow Lower Court’s Supplemental Briefing/Proof Instructions. Chavez v. California Collision, LLC, Case No. A167658 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 10, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is part of a continuing trend for appellate courts to honor
Lower Court’s Entry Of Judgment Based On 998 Offer With Additional Terms Was Erroneous. CCP section 998 offers are governed by contractual principles; so, if you propose additional terms, that might be construed as a counteroffer which cannot be enforced. That is what happened in Gonzalez v. Bowens, Case No. D084264
However, In A Split Opinion, Justices Do Not Agree On Whether A Valid Offer Under The Simultaneous Process Can Still Allow For Fee- And Costs-Shifting. Here is a case which might be a candidate for California Supreme Court review, prompting a split decision on some interesting CCP § 998 issues. In Gorobets v.
